I've been involved in Amherst's town government for about 30 years, including the Planning Board, the Select Board, several committees, and Town Meeting. I have written this column for over a decade since I ceased to be a member of the Select Board, and occasionally before my election. My experience, as a participant and as an observer, suggests to me that it's time to change our form of government.
Looking back over my old columns, I see that most have been about either planning or financial issues. That doesn't surprise me. My initial reasons for participating were conservation and planning; financial concerns thrust themselves to the fore during my first term on the Select Board, when we were hit with the recession of the late 1980s. Neither has let up. During the past decade and a half, Amherst has faced both rapid development and the fiscal realities of Proposition 2 1/2 in a time of declining Federal assistance to communities and wildly swinging state contributions. In this context, we need a town government that can facilitate thoughtful consideration of problems and possible solutions. We need a more coherent and collaborative process than we currently have, one in which the elected officials are perceived to be, and can act as, the political leaders of the community. Such leaders can take the pulse of the town, talk with people throughout the town who have varying interests and concerns, and bring people together to solve problems, not rail against each other. Our current form of government isn't meeting these needs well because it isn't structured for coordination. Instead, it is set up as if each major function of our government – schools, libraries, municipal services – were separate entities. While that worked when financial and land use constraints were not so pressing, it's not working well now. Improvised solutions, particularly the Joint Capital Planning Committee, have helped; the JCPC's success has also suggested a better way.
What I like best about the Charter are its combination of representative democracy, political leadership and accountability, and professional management. The Mayor will be elected town-wide by appealing to a broad constituency of residents. The Mayor will coordinate budget development, and also represent the town in dealings with other agencies and institutions. Each of us will also vote for five of the nine members of the Council: four at-large and one for the district. You and I will regularly have an opportunity to choose who will lead our community. The day-to-day management will continue to be by a professional Town Manager, just as the schools are managed by the School Superintendent and the Libraries by the Director of Library Services. The Charter also keeps our citizen committees which do so much of the actual work of running the town. Hundreds of our fellow townspeople put in many hours of work a month for our mutual benefit on a wide range of committees, including: Aquifer Protection, Conservation Commission, Shade Tree Committee, Board of Health, Council on Aging, Historical Commission, Housing Partnership / Fair Housing Committee, Human Rights Commission, Human Services Funding Committee, Leisure Services, Personnel Board, Planning Board, Overall Economic Planning, and Town/Commercial Relations. Under our Mayor-Council-Manager form of government, they will continue to do so. There will be two differences. One is that proposals can be brought forward to the Council when the proposal is ready, instead of on an arbitrary time frame set by Town Meeting's schedule. The other is that the Council members will be spending more time than most Town Meeting members do (or can), so they will be more informed when they vote. One of the disadvantages of the current form of government is that proposals from committees sometimes don't get due consideration from a Town Meeting that might be focused on other subjects.
I believe I am in the vast majority of town residents when I say I like the IDEA of Town Meeting. I also think I'm in the majority when I conclude that it has outlived its usefulness as a form of government for us. Despite the best efforts of many dedicated people, we still have elections in which almost 90% of Town Meeting candidates are essentially unopposed for election (268 people running for 240 seats) and nominated themselves. I don't question the good intentions of these candidates, but the result cannot accurately be described as representative democracy. Town meeting members are speaking and voting for themselves, really. I prefer a system in which office holders know who their constituents are, and voters know who their representatives are, how to contact them, and what their positions and votes are. It's time for us to make that happen for Amherst.